State v. Mast

"Whether post-Miranda statements must be suppressed when the Miranda warnings are belatedly given turns on whether the state has established that the warnings were 'effective.'" State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 480, 236 P3d 691 (2010). "To determine whether belatedly administered Miranda warnings are effective, we consider 'all relevant circumstances.'" Id. at 482.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants and Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver, which was entered following Defendant’s conditional guilty plea for those crimes. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress statements that he made during an interrogation by the police. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statement's made pre- and post-Miranda should have been suppressed.  In response, the State conceded that the trial court should have suppressed all of Defendant's unwarned statements; however, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion regarding statements made after he was given Miranda warnings, and Defendant waived those rights knowingly and voluntarily. "Whether post-Miranda statements must be suppressed when the Miranda warnings are belatedly given turns on whether the state has established that the warnings were 'effective.'" State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 480, 236 P3d 691 (2010). "To determine whether belatedly administered Miranda warnings are effective, we consider 'all relevant circumstances.'" Id. at 482. The Court found that the belatedly administered Miranda warnings were ineffective to ensure a knowing a voluntary waiver of Defendant's Article 1, section 12 rights. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress evidence of Defendant's pre- and post-Miranda statements. Reversed and remanded.